Almost everyone reading my blog is familiar with the acrostic TULIP as standing for the five points of Calvinism. Probably most of you know what each point stands for: Total Depravity, Unconditional Election, Limited Atonement, Irresistible Grace, Perseverance of the Saints. Then the number goes down as to who knows what each point means. I would venture to guess that there would be disagreement over what people think “L” should mean, or what “T”, “I” or “P” actually imply.
If you’ve read any Calvinist literature, you have seen a recasting of the points. Some turn it from TULIP into ROSES (Timothy George), others like my former pastor John Piper, choose to consider the points in a thematic order rather than their order in the word TULIP. Piper’s pamphlet on the points spells the Calvinist flower: TILUP. I’ve seen books and essays advocate “efficacious grace” or “particular redemption” as opposed the the TULIP title of the point in question.
What very few of you who read this blog know, and what I just learned, is that the acronym TULIP is a very recent development. It apparently hails from the early 20th Century, first appearing in Lorraine Boettner’s 1932 book, The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination. I just finished reading an article by Ken Stewart [pdf] which traces the development of TULIP [HT: Dave Doran]. Stewart rummages through the literary remains of the 18th and 19th Centuries in a vain attempt to find any use of our flowery acronym. He finds many treatments of Calvinism in the first half of the 20th Century totally bereft of any mention of TULIP as well. Stewart cites Roger Nicole as one who also noted the newness of the TULIP scheme. From his preface of the 40th anniversary edition of Steele and Thomas’ Five Points of Calvinism, Nicole states: “Ever since the appearance of Loraine Boettner’s magisterial The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination it has been customary to refer to the five points according to the acrostic TULIP.”
A couple months back, Justin Taylor entertained this same theme on his blog, and in the comments proof of the use of TULIP was given in a 1913 article of the New Outlook, which cites a Dr. Cleland McAffee as using the term as a mnemonic device in his lectures back in 1905. So that is apparently the earliest documented use of the TULIP acronym found to date.
Stewart’s piece is well worth the read, as he concludes with a call for Calvinism to be more irenic and pleasing in its tone, especially when interacting with the wider Christian church. So I guess true Calvinism, isn’t all about fives. I for one, would be glad to let the TULIP wither. I love the heart of Calvinism, but a strict adherence to five points that aren’t adequately explained is not helpful. This might be a good time for all of us to go read the original Five Points in their entirety– I‘m referring to the Canons of Dort, of course.
UPDATE: I forgot to include the link to Stewart’s article initially. Here is the link (it’s a pdf file).
Hmm, I am not sure how that link is more “irenic”. As a Calvinist since before I knew what Calvinism was, I must nevertheless point out two big problems with that link, which impede any ability to honestly assess Arminianism.
First is the statement that “Jacob Arminius … departed from the Reformed faith on a number of important points.” This is dishonest and absurd. Arminius and Calvin disagreed on a very small set of points which had previously been open for interpretation in reformed theology. It’s called “Calvinism” for a reason — because Calvin’s theology was not the same as all of his reformed predecessors. The only “irenic” (and honest) thing to say is that both Arminius and Calvin were both reformed theologians.
Next is the assertion that Arminius and the Remonstrants disagreed on all 5 points enumerated in the Canons of Dordt. This is patently false. Arminius disagreed with Calvin on only 3 of the points (the U, L, and I). This is a supremely important distinction to make, because Calvinists look like ignorant morons when we (for example) accuse Arminius of not holding the doctrine of total depravity, and get Arminians all mixed up with Pelagians. The URL you referenced talks about Arminius holding to “the free will of man due to only partial depravity”, which is complete slander and falsehood. We might as well say that Arminians harvest virgins’ organs and drink children’s blood.
Joshua,
I’m not sure which article you were looking at. I forgot to include the link to the article by Stewart (I have now added it, see the update above). His call is to be irenic rather than abrasive. I’m not making any statements about Arminius and I don’t think Stewart did in that paper.
Sorry about the confusion and thanks for dropping the comment.
In Christ,
Bob
Sorry I wasn’t clear; I was referring to the link to the Canons of Dordt, which is actually a link to an ignorant and inflammatory opinion about Arminianism, with the Canons of Dordt tacked on “below the fold”. Calvinism can stand quite nicely on its own, without needing people like that to inject their own “innovative” arguments based on slander and falsehood.
Ah, sorry about that, I can update the link. Arminius predated the fully developed Remonstrance. His followers were judged heretics by Dort, but the canons are a good read nonetheless. Let me dig for a more neutral presentation of the Canons of Dort. Thanks for the feedback, I appreciate it.
Joshua,
I just updated the Canons link to the Christian Reformed Church’s site with the Canons. Their introduction is less polemical and more informative.
Thanks again,
Bob
Cool, thanks! The remonstrants were essentially orthodox on T, and P, despite being declared errant regarding the U,L,I. Only Limborch (admittedly a large figure within the remonstrants) veered off the plantation into what was essentially pelagianism; and he is no more Arminian than any of Calvin’s followers who departed from Calvin’s teachings would be considered “Calvinist”. Of course, Limborch is a great example to support the “slippery slope” warning that Calvinists bring against Arminians — people who desire to flirt with Pelagianism and Universalism are not likely to be faithful Calvinists!
I’ve been waiting to learn the history of this acronym for a long time. I will devour Stewart’s essay with relish.
However, I must admit that the only tweaking I’ve ever recommended for the TULIP was to highlight the work of each Person of the Trinity among the points. It looks like this:
Total Depravity OF THE SINNER
Unconditional Election OF THE FATHER
Limited Atonement OF THE SON
Irresistable Grace OF THE SPIRIT
Perseverance OF THE SAINT(s)
Be that as it may, I always thought it was appropriate (allegedly misleading terminology notwithstanding) that the five points, which find their origin in the Dutch Synod of Dort, were packaged by the use of the term TULIP. The reason I say that is that one day, I was watching Turner Classic Movies (or was it American Movie Classics? I always confuse those two) and between features they ran an old short film called “Springtime in the Netherlands.” It was all about the Dutch Tulip industry, and how it’s such a major factor in their national economy. I figured, “That must be why they called the five points of Calvinism TULIP!” It all made sense to me.
Thanks for linking to this essay.
Stewart is rigid in his rejection of rigidity. His essay is less about what he does believe, and mostly about what he doesn’t believe–he doesn’t like the vulgar extravagance of those who identify the gospel with the five doctrines.
In his uncritical embrace of the evangelical party, Steward rigidly cannot embrace parties on the narrow margins like Herman Hoeksema or Englesma of the Protestant Reformed Church. By demonstrating the lack of historical precedent on a focus on the five points, Steward somehow thinks he has made an argument that we should not in the future focus on the five points.
But Calvinism is not less than the five points, and a lot of the more than guys don’t believe the five points. Even with the non-Bible-church folks who do believe the five points but want more than, Calivnism is about “the covenant”. They say “the covenant” in every other sentence without defining it. Which covenant? Is that covenant conditional or unconditional?
Calvinism is more than the five points means
a. infant baptism
b. “sacramental realism”: unlike those Zwinglian rationalists, they really eat Jesus they proclaim that they do not explain how.
3.They don’t withdraw from culture like the anabaptists (or create their own) but try to take over everybody’s culture. (The two-kingdom Calvinists still think there is only one culture, but they agree to it being secular.)
4. Like Niebuhr, they know thee can be no culture without killing.
Speaking from the margins where the atonement is defined in terms of imputation and election, I must say I am glad not to be Stewart’s kind of rigid Calvinist!
mark mcculley